Except, Steph, that in your blog you cited that Earl Mitchell was ranked the 47th best DT in the NFL, with only 3 starts and spot duty in 2012. That’s 31 tackles for Mitchell in 2012 to Cody’s 17 tackles in 12 starts. I wouldn’t call that Mitchell’s writing-on-the-wall; still, as an adjective, “encouraging” would be my pick of the litter.

The stats don’t make Mitchell an all-pro baller. Indeed, they might be more an indictment on Cody’s play when we boil it to bone. Maybe. See, it’s difficult to make projections, yet with Mitchell I ran the ticker and I was surprised at what a quiet little bruiser he’s been as a non-starter. To wit:

What I’m missing is TFL stats; nevertheless, I would call Mitchell an upgrade, and if we deem him an upgrade, by inference, I would say he’s at least “encouraging” going into 2013.

I know it’s goofy; moreover, I hated the Mitchell pick at #81 when we could have had Geno Atkins at #120; yet, just for giggles I ran Mitchell’s numbers at his current pace over a 12 year career (as a backup, mind you) and I came up with 344 tackles and 8 sacks. That looks a lot like Casey Hampton, who over 12 years is at 373 tackles and 9 sacks, as a starter with 161 more starts than Mitchell.

I hate to nitpick, but I think I’m On The Nose with this one – at least as far as potential.

I think you should be punched On The Nose for abusing statistics like that.

Put the stats down man they are making you goofy! Mitchell SUCKS with a capital S. At least he has so far. Maybe he can become something more who knows. But if you think you can multiply his stats and then compare him to Hampton, one of the top NT's in the league you are crazy. That is just silly!!

Hey, ease up on the Cialis, killah. Tell your doctor if you've got an erection lasting longer than 4 hours.

All I'm saying is, for a non-starter his first three years, Mitchell has so far proved his doubters wrong, including myself, who bitched like a b!tch when we took him in the 3rd. I wouldn’t dare make the claim that Mitchell will reach the lofty heights of Big Snack, yet projections based upon stats are something the NFL pundits do all the time. Certainly there are too many variables, but hell, I thought it was obvious that the point of my write up was more of a comparison of Mitchell vs. Cody and how enthusiasm should abound over having a clear upgrade in Mitchell. The big question mark to me is not so much Mitchell, but who is going to back him up.

Kragen lighter weight at actually 267 (still not that light for 20+ years ago, only single Pro Bowler.

Ted Washington mountain size in any day was between 365 and 400 pounds, 4 Pro Bowls.

Jamal Williams mountain size at 348, 4 Pro Bowls

Jay Ratliff relatively "light" at 293, 4 Pro Bowls

Ratliff and his elite skills are definitely an outlier even in Wade's career...............and Earl Mitchell is no Ratliff, nor has he shown anything that can make one believe that he can ever be a Ratliff.

The Big Man in the middle has shown superiority for a reason, the same reason we need one on this team. Wade needs to stop trying to prove a null equation.

Except, Steph, that in your blog you cited that Earl Mitchell was ranked the 47th best DT in the NFL, with only 3 starts and spot duty in 2012. That’s 31 tackles for Mitchell in 2012 to Cody’s 17 tackles in 12 starts. I wouldn’t call that Mitchell’s writing-on-the-wall; still, as an adjective, “encouraging” would be my pick of the litter.

The stats don’t make Mitchell an all-pro baller. Indeed, they might be more an indictment on Cody’s play when we boil it to bone. Maybe. See, it’s difficult to make projections, yet with Mitchell I ran the ticker and I was surprised at what a quiet little bruiser he’s been as a non-starter. To wit:

What I’m missing is TFL stats; nevertheless, I would call Mitchell an upgrade, and if we deem him an upgrade, by inference, I would say he’s at least “encouraging” going into 2013.

I know it’s goofy; moreover, I hated the Mitchell pick at #81 when we could have had Geno Atkins at #120; yet, just for giggles I ran Mitchell’s numbers at his current pace over a 12 year career (as a backup, mind you) and I came up with 344 tackles and 8 sacks. That looks a lot like Casey Hampton, who over 12 years is at 373 tackles and 9 sacks, as a starter with 161 more starts than Mitchell.

I hate to nitpick, but I think I’m On The Nose with this one – at least as far as potential.

Yes, as my blog post noted, Mitchell played better than Cody last year. Though to be fair to Cody, his play decreased after he was hurt.

But if you look at Mitchell's game to game measures by PFF, they've been pretty marginal every year.

And when Cody went out to injury, and the Dline rotation was thin, the defense looked unfortunate. Mitchell's individual grades went up with more opportunity, but not great, and the defense had two of its worst games.

As my blog post noted, my comment wasn't meant as a pro-Cody get back post. It is more of an observation that there has been little that I've seen to suggest that once Mitchell has more snaps, he will play much better. You can extrapolate his stats, but that can be hard to do because sometimes more snaps exposes a player (OTOH, sometimes opportunity allows them to thrive).

All I know is. 1. He looks fit. 2. He looked fit last year. 3. Wade's system can be good to DTs and they can make Pro Bowl. 4. Not seeing any Pro Bowl guys on this line other than Mr. Watt. 5. I hope I'm totally wrong on Mitchell.

Que? Even in his day he was undersized. Randy White went 260 lbs - 9 pro-bowls, 7 1st team all pro, hall of fame. The Cowboys drafted him with the idea of moving him to LB because he was too small for DT.

Quote:

Ted Washington mountain size in any day was between 365 and 400 pounds, 4 Pro Bowls.

Jamal Williams mountain size at 348, 4 Pro Bowls

Jay Ratliff relatively "light" at 293, 4 Pro Bowls

Ratliff and his elite skills are definitely an outlier even in Wade's career...............and Earl Mitchell is no Ratliff, nor has he shown anything that can make one believe that he can ever be a Ratliff.

The Big Man in the middle has shown superiority for a reason, the same reason we need one on this team. Wade needs to stop trying to prove a null equation.

Three examples and you choose to throw out the light one (and frankly defined out the other light guy which would have tied things). To me that looks like Wade working with either style and when the talent is there it shines.

There are two possible conclusions here (1) Wade doesn't want a big body or (2) Wade doesn't have as much influence over the draft/free agency as people claim.

Kragen lighter weight at actually 267 (still not that light for 20+ years ago, only single Pro Bowler.

Ted Washington mountain size in any day was between 365 and 400 pounds, 4 Pro Bowls.

Jamal Williams mountain size at 348, 4 Pro Bowls

Jay Ratliff relatively "light" at 293, 4 Pro Bowls

Ratliff and his elite skills are definitely an outlier even in Wade's career...............and Earl Mitchell is no Ratliff, nor has he shown anything that can make one believe that he can ever be a Ratliff.

The Big Man in the middle has shown superiority for a reason, the same reason we need one on this team. Wade needs to stop trying to prove a null equation.

Actually, if you look at the top 10 DTs of 2013 as listed by PFF, most of them are in the 300 lb range. Planetoid guys who can move are uncommon, and they sometimes are prone to injury.

In a league that promotes passing, DTs who can move are valued more than guys who just stuff the run.

The flipside is that if you have a guy who can do both, that is a competitive advantage because few teams have those guys.

And therein lays the rub, Doc. I’m not exactly seeing your weight correlation, but I am seeing a list of quite effective penetrating NTs, which Mitchell is certainly not. I believe Mitchell has shown more than Cody that if you want a guy fleet of foot who can diagnose the run and not get gashed too much, then we probably have that in Mitchell.

If, on the other hand, we want the complete 3-4 NT who can both play the run and get to the QB on a consistent basis, then we probably do not have him on roster (unless it’s Chris Jones who is known for his one-gap penetrating style – but he’s even more unproven than Mitchell).

I’m enthusiastic that Mitchell will do a better job than Mr. Funny Man. I’m enthusiastic that Mitchell can do his job and anchor the fort without us getting killed up the middle (time will tell).

Is Wade really cutting against his own grain, though? Or is he simply playing with the hand dealt him? Remember, Mitchell was a product of the ol’ Frank Bush/Rick Smith brain trust. So, where do these one-gap penetrating NTs come from? The 7th round like Ratliff? The 4th round like Atkins (a 4-3 guy), or the 6th round like Jones?

Que? Even in his day he was undersized. Randy White went 260 lbs - 9 pro-bowls, 7 1st team all pro, hall of fame. The Cowboys drafted him with the idea of moving him to LB because he was too small for DT.

I know that you grew up in Dallas with Randy White. I grew up in Kansas City with Curley Culp. Culp was actually considered short (measured out at 6'1") for his position, far from light (265) in his day. Buck Buchanan, considered large played next to him at 270, but was 6'7".

And therein lays the rub, Doc. I’m not exactly seeing your weight correlation, but I am seeing a list of quite effective penetrating NTs, which Mitchell is certainly not. I believe Mitchell has shown more than Cody that if you want a guy fleet of foot who can diagnose the run and not get gashed too much, then we probably have that in Mitchell.

If, on the other hand, we want the complete 3-4 NT who can both play the run and get to the QB on a consistent basis, then we probably do not have him on roster (unless it’s Chris Jones who is known for his one-gap penetrating style – but he’s even more unproven than Mitchell).

I’m enthusiastic that Mitchell will do a better job than Mr. Funny Man. I’m enthusiastic that Mitchell can do his job and anchor the fort without us getting killed up the middle (time will tell).

Is Wade really cutting against his own grain, though? Or is he simply playing with the hand dealt him? Remember, Mitchell was a product of the ol’ Frank Bush/Rick Smith brain trust. So, where do these one-gap penetrating NTs come from? The 7th round like Ratliff? The 4th round like Atkins (a 4-3 guy), or the 6th round like Jones?

Cody was below average and yet Mitchell never could beat him out. That should tell you all you need to know. I foresee Mitchell taking Walters place as the new Texans fans whipping boy. I hope I'm wrong and he light it up but I just don't see it.

__________________
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." Albert Einstein

Kragen lighter weight at actually 267 (still not that light for 20+ years ago, only single Pro Bowler.

Ted Washington mountain size in any day was between 365 and 400 pounds, 4 Pro Bowls.

Jamal Williams mountain size at 348, 4 Pro Bowls

Jay Ratliff relatively "light" at 293, 4 Pro Bowls

Ratliff and his elite skills are definitely an outlier even in Wade's career...............and Earl Mitchell is no Ratliff, nor has he shown anything that can make one believe that he can ever be a Ratliff.

The Big Man in the middle has shown superiority for a reason, the same reason we need one on this team. Wade needs to stop trying to prove a null equation.

That's an average weight of 306 for pro bowl NT's under Phillips. Hardly a ringing endorsement for a heavy weight at the position.

Also an average weight of 264.4 for all of the NT's you listed. I don't get it.

__________________
"We cannot order men see the truth or prohibit them from indulging in error."

Also an average weight of 264.4 for all of the NT's you listed. I don't get it.

It's skewed by the how far back some of those statistics go. If you look at a roster of the Oilers for the 1976 season, you'll see the heaviest player on the team was 267 pounds. Curley Culp was only 2 pounds behind at 265.

In fact, if you start from the bottom up, you have to go all the way to the 1990 Broncos that Kragen played on before you even find a roster that had a player at 300 pounds (the 1989 Broncos maxed out at 290). That means that Wade coached the first 14 of those 35 years without even having a 300 pounder on his team's roster, much less playing nose tackle.

__________________
Being a D-bag and being factually correct are not in any way mutually exclusive!

let's not forget, anybody is going to look good playing next to JJ Watt

also everyone on that line practices & learns from him, elevating their games as well.

tricky business to project just pure nose guards because they flip & rotate so much. Mitchell is the clear front runner, young & now nearly developed into a polished starter IMO. After which rookie 6th rd. draft choice Chris Jones stands an excellent chance to back-up Earl & rotate. In fact I'm almost certain Texans will go heavy @ DE over nose, several which could also kick inside, Jared Crick, Sunny Harris or David Hunter. That would effectively give Texans five possible combinations inside.

All I'm saying is, for a non-starter his first three years, Mitchell has so far proved his doubters wrong, including myself, who bitched like a b!tch when we took him in the 3rd.

I like what you've done. Sorry I hadn't jumped in earlier, but you make a pretty good argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

yet projections based upon stats are something the NFL pundits do all the time.

Fuggit... your numbers show he's been productive in the past. More productive than we perceive. That's good enough.

He's also being promoted to starter, in Wade's eyes, he's earned the spot. Imo, we need to forget what we know about the traditional NT & try to understand what Wade is doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Certainly there are too many variables, but hell, I thought it was obvious that the point of my write up was more of a comparison of Mitchell vs. Cody and how enthusiasm should abound over having a clear upgrade in Mitchell.

And when Cody went out to injury, and the Dline rotation was thin, the defense looked unfortunate. Mitchell's individual grades went up with more opportunity, but not great, and the defense had two of its worst games.

As my blog post noted, my comment wasn't meant as a pro-Cody get back post. It is more of an observation that there has been little that I've seen to suggest that once Mitchell has more snaps, he will play much better.

I can't wait to see what the defense will look like with Cushing & Reed behind him instead of tweedle-dee & tweedle-dum

Earl is about to go off this year. It was apparent last year that Cody should not be starting over him moving forward. Some of that was due to Cody's injuries, but IMO earl played well at the position. The mobility he brings to the position is special.

And when Cody went out to injury, and the Dline rotation was thin, the defense looked unfortunate. Mitchell's individual grades went up with more opportunity, but not great, and the defense had two of its worst games.

I wouldn't put that as part of your equation on the NT because they played about half the defensive snaps. They weren't part of the issue in those games. I think it has been well documented that Wade does generally not keep the NT out there on passing downs/spread formations and our worse defensive efforts came against the spread meaning the NT doesn't have that much of an impact.

For example, one of those games was Jacksonville part deux. Total defensive snaps was 68. Earl Mitchell only had 36 of those snaps (4 went to McClain)

Detroit was the other. Total defensive snaps around 91. Mitchell was in 41 (McClain 2). In fact, our 3rd safety was in more with Demps in there for 51 snaps. It's one reason why I tell others that the Swearinger pick is more important than they realize.

That means the position has less impact than most are making it out to be. Important? Course as every position is. At the same time not like a team can afford to pay every spot so you have weigh the importance of each in your scheme. For ours and against todays NFL the NT is not that impactful unless Wade switches things up which I am guessing would take one hell of a NT to make happen. Those aren't easy to find (or should we say afford lol).

Heck, against the Packers and Patriots part deux we didn't even start the NT. We immediately leaped into Wade's passing defense. So I'm okay with Mitchell as being 'servicable' because that is about all he is at this point. At the same time we could use something behind him as we have saw little of McClain to say much. I'm thinking Crick may get in there more than we think.

I wouldn't put that as part of your equation on the NT because they played about half the defensive snaps. They weren't part of the issue in those games. I think it has been well documented that Wade does generally not keep the NT out there on passing downs/spread formations and our worse defensive efforts came against the spread meaning the NT doesn't have that much of an impact.

For example, one of those games was Jacksonville part deux. Total defensive snaps was 68. Earl Mitchell only had 36 of those snaps (4 went to McClain)

Detroit was the other. Total defensive snaps around 91. Mitchell was in 41 (McClain 2). In fact, our 3rd safety was in more with Demps in there for 51 snaps. It's one reason why I tell others that the Swearinger pick is more important than they realize.

That means the position has less impact than most are making it out to be. Important? Course as every position is. At the same time not like a team can afford to pay every spot so you have weigh the importance of each in your scheme. For ours and against todays NFL the NT is not that impactful unless Wade switches things up which I am guessing would take one hell of a NT to make happen. Those aren't easy to find (or should we say afford lol).

Heck, against the Packers and Patriots part deux we didn't even start the NT. We immediately leaped into Wade's passing defense. So I'm okay with Mitchell as being 'servicable' because that is about all he is at this point. At the same time we could use something behind him as we have saw little of McClain to say much. I'm thinking Crick may get in there more than we think.

Chickens and eggs. Is the reason why a true DT doesn't see the field a ton because a different defensive lineup gives them a better chance to win? Does this create problems for the Texans against more balanced offenses where you can't load up on either the run or the pass?

My greater point was just some were predicting Earl Mitchell would have a breakout season because he looks good. My blog post was, hey, he looked good going into OTAs last season too, but there is little reason to believe that all of a sudden Mitchell is going to be a player that we haven't seen in previous games.

Pro arguments for Mitchell improving?

More time with Cody gone.
Defensive linemen not named JJ Watt sometimes need more time to get better at what they do and become full growed mens.

Anti arguments for Mitchell improving?

His individual PFF numbers in limited time have stayed about the same the entire time he's been with the team.
If he was that good, he'd already be seeing the field more than he had.
In the games that Cody was out, the defense played poorly, and his individual numbers via PFF are sort of average.
Under Wade's defense, DTs can excel, make Pro Bowls. Nothing in EM's performance to date suggests that will happen.
Sometimes with more snaps, a player improves, but often it exposes their weaknesses unless they are an outstanding player.

I think the arguments for EM having a "breakout year" are wishful thinking. I think they may have a rotation of guys, and just hope that it isn't something that is exposed.

His individual PFF numbers in limited time have stayed about the same the entire time he's been with the team.
If he was that good, he'd already be seeing the field more than he had.
In the games that Cody was out, the defense played poorly, and his individual numbers via PFF are sort of average.
Under Wade's defense, DTs can excel, make Pro Bowls. Nothing in EM's performance to date suggests that will happen.
Sometimes with more snaps, a player improves, but often it exposes their weaknesses unless they are an outstanding player.

I think the arguments for EM having a "breakout year" are wishful thinking. I think they may have a rotation of guys, and just hope that it isn't something that is exposed.

I doubt he'll have a breakout year as well but still not seeing where he has to. Just like you brought up the defense played poor when Cody was out but Cody could have been healthy it wouldn't have mattered. He wouldn't have been on the field anyway but partially. The NT is not out there for the spread formations so his presence would have meant little hence what I disagree on. Plus Mitchell's grades in those games were actually positive. In fact, he has had more positive graded games than Cody.

Even in 2011 in a possible 1168 defensive snaps Cody got only 451. I would say the fact time was shared means Mitchell actually did show the coaches something otherwise he wouldn't have seen so much time. When Cody was down did Mitchell have to share time? Nope because no one else warranted it except spot duty.

So actually Mitchell's PFF grade did improve unless you're going back to the time before Wade. I'm only focusing on the time with Wade here in a new defensive approach and a coach who actually knows how to tie his shoes unlike the previous incarnations we had here lol.

In any case it illustrates an actual improvement on Mitchell's part. Plus I guess I just find the whole Cody thing a reach. He wasn't good. He was a below average guy in this defense that had a moment here and there so I just can't see how Mitchell can't do the same thing. He already has actually so to me the only difference is we had two servicable guys at the spot where as now we only have one that we know of.

Guess comes down to how you want to view it. Are you looking for a heavy impact guy or someone servicable? Cody was only servicable and I am probably being generous saying that. I don't expect Mitchell to be anything more than that. Anything more is gravy which always is a good topping.

Anyway, nice talk! Feel like I drag it off topic lol. Thanks for the updates from all by the way.